net_ip_header

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it examines patterns and entropy to detect hidden data, but does not clarify if it modifies data, what output format to expect, or any prerequisites beyond file_path. Lacks detail on side effects or read-only nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences that front-load the purpose. No superfluous words. Could be slightly improved by combining information, but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (analyzing multiple IP fields for covert data) and lack of output schema, the description should clarify what results are produced (e.g., flagged packets, entropy values). Current description leaves the agent guessing about output, making it incomplete for informed selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter file_path described as 'Path to PCAP capture file'. The description adds no further meaning to the parameter beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Describes specific verb-examines TTL patterns, IP ID entropy, TOS/DSCP to detect hidden data in IP header fields. Distinguishes from sibling tools like net_tcp_header and net_icmp_payload which focus on different layers. However, 'examines' is somewhat passive; a more active verb like 'analyzes' would be clearer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage when covert data is suspected in IP header fields, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like net_tcp_header or net_dns_tunnel. No exclusions or contextual clues provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.